Re: Bi-laws

[nfrank@mindspring.com]

>From Bob M
>>Here are the key issues that must be decided:
* Where should the AGA incorporate?

Mass is OK with me and probably with everyone else. With 4 current members on 
the SC, I bet we will not have problem finding a "clerk" for many years.

>>* How will the AGA be run - i.e., how many directors will there be, how =
long will they serve, who will the directors and officers be initially, =<<

Bob C's proposal sounded fine to me... although I will agree that an odd no is 
probably better.

>>and how will they be elected?
* What voting rights, if any, should the general membership have?<<


Bob M: for the last point, you seem to suggest that another process would be 
better than the cumbersome process of involving the entire membership. I 
certainly agree it is combersome and fraught with potential problems.... that 
is why we were autocratic for the past 10 years. 
Do you have a suggestion that will give voting rights to a more limited percent 
of the membership ?

>>I would recommend that the by-laws allow the Board to name =
an Executive Committee to make day-to-day decisions.  The Board would =
retain the right to overrule the Executive Committee.<<

I like the above suggestion. The EC would be the people who feel that they have 
the time and intereste to be involved in the decision process... and avoid 
gettting Bob Cashin to bang his head against the computer to get a response for 
a large and perhaps unwieldy MC. 

Here's a thought:
The MC is an advisory group, not decision makers. The decision makers are the 
SC or an even smaller EC. Then the MC would be involved in discussions but 
should only be cc'd on messages... we don't worry if they don't respond... All 
committee chairs would be on the list. We could potentially allow more people 
to view an edited version of conversations if we had a recording secretary.... 
then we can post them on the web page.  It might be too much to allow all 
committee members or interested AGAers to particpate in AGA email 
converstattions.  Those MCers that stay engaged will want to eventually move up 
to the SC/EC. What is the process to make that happen? One thought is to have 
an SC term of , say, 2 years, and then nominate and elect the board from the 
MC. This is a way to keep the process more democratic but eliminate the need to 
allow everyone to vote. I would like to ensure a way of an interested member 
with broad member support to get a committee.... and be added to the M!
!
C.



Voting rights of the membership





>>Those people who are willing to volunteer =
time and effort towards running the organization are probably welcomed =
with open arms. <<

That is the issue.

--Neil

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-mcm" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-mcm-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-mcm
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-mcm", and password "incorporate".